Sherinette Wannamaker, a/k/a Sheri Wannamaker v. WARDEN, Graham Correctional Institution, Camille Griffin

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7844
SHERINETTE WANNAMAKER, a/k/a Sheri Wannamaker,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN, Graham Correctional Institution, Camille Griffin,
Respondent - Appellee,
and
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,
Respondent.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District
Judge. (9:13-cv-02934-TLW)
Submitted: April 30, 2015 Decided: August 19, 2015
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sherinette Wannamaker, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka,
Senior Assistant Attorney General, Melody Jane Brown, John
William McIntosh, Assistant Attorneys General, Alan Wilson,

-- 1 of 3 --

2
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Sherinette Wannamaker appeals the district court’s order
dismissing her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. We previously
granted a certificate of appealability on the issue of whether
Wannamaker’s due process rights were violated after she was
denied a new trial. The Respondent has filed an informal
response brief addressing this claim, and Wannamaker has filed a
reply brief.
After reviewing the parties’ filings and the record on
appeal, we conclude that Wannamaker’s claim is not cognizable on
federal habeas review. See Lawrence v. Branker, 517 F.3d 700,
717 (4th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, although we grant Wannamaker
leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we dismiss the claim for
which we granted a certificate of appealability. With regard to
Wannamaker’s remaining claims, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss that portion of the appeal. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --